The personalized advantage index: Translating research on prediction into individualized treatment recommendations. A demonstration

Background: Advances in personalized medicine require the identification of variables that predict differential response to treatments as well as the development and refinement of methods to transform predictive information into actionable recommendations. Objective: To illustrate and test a new method for integrating predictive information to aid in treatment selection, using data from a randomized treatment comparison. Method: Data from a trial of antidepressant medications (N = 104) versus cognitive behavioral therapy (N = 50) for Major Depressive Disorder were used to produce predictions of post-treatment scores on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) in each of the two treatments for each of the 154 patients. The patient's own data were not used in the models that yielded these predictions. Five pre-randomization variables that predicted differential response (marital status, employment status, life events, comorbid personality disorder, and prior medication trials) were included in regression models, permitting the calculation of each patient's Personalized Advantage Index (PAI), in HRSD units. Results: For 60% of the sample a clinically meaningful advantage (PAI≥3) was predicted for one of the treatments, relative to the other. When these patients were divided into those randomly assigned to their "Optimal" treatment versus those assigned to their "Non-optimal" treatment, outcomes in the former group were superior (d = 0.58, 95% CI .17-1.01). Conclusions: This approach to treatment selection, implemented in the context of two equally effective treatments, yielded effects that, if obtained prospectively, would rival those routinely observed in comparisons of active versus control treatments. © 2014 DeRubeis et al

An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China

Background: Despite the rapid increase in research in China, little is known about the quality of clinical trials conducted there.Methods: A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China and published in 2004 was undertaken to describe their characteristics, assess the quality of their reporting, and where possible, the quality of their conduct. Randomised controlled trials in all disease areas and types of interventions, which took place in China and included Chinese citizens were identified using PubMed and hand searching the Journal Series of the Chinese Medical Association. Quality was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT statement.Results: Three hundred and seven RCTs were included. One hundred and ninety-nine (64.8%) failed to report methods of randomization and 254 (82.4%) did not mention blinding of either participants or investigators. Reporting of baseline characteristics, primary outcome and length of follow-up was inadequate in a substantial proportion of studies. Fewer than 11% of RCTs mentioned ethical approval and only 18.0% adequately discussed informed consent. However, dropout rates were very favourable with nearly 44% of trials reporting a zero dropout rate.Conclusion: Reporting of RCTs in China requires substantial improvement to meet the targets of the CONSORT statement. The conduct of Chinese RCTs cannot be directly inferred from the standard of reporting; however without good reporting the methods of the trials cannot be clearly ascertained

Therapy Insight: Parenteral Estrogen treatment for Prostate Cancer—a new dawn for an old therapy

Oral estrogens were the treatment of choice for carcinoma of the prostate for over four decades, but were abandoned because of an excess of cardiovascular and thromboembolic toxicity. It is now recognized that most of this toxicity is related to the first pass portal circulation, which upregulates the hepatic metabolism of hormones, lipids and coagulation proteins. Most of this toxicity can be avoided by parenteral (intramuscular or transdermal) estrogen administration, which avoids hepatic enzyme induction. It also seems that a short-term but modest increase in cardiovascular morbidity (but not mortality) is compensated for by a long-term cardioprotective benefit, which accrues progressively as vascular remodeling develops over time. Parenteral estrogen therapy has the advantage of giving protection against the effects of andropause (similar to the female menopause), which are induced by conventional androgen suppression and include osteoporotic fracture, hot flashes, asthenia and cognitive dysfunction. In addition, parenteral estrogen therapy is significantly cheaper than contemporary endocrine therapy, with substantive economic implications for health providers

Hsa-miRNA-765 as a key mediator for inhibiting growth, migration and invasion in fulvestrant-treated prostate cancer

Fulvestrant (ICI-182,780) has recently been shown to effectively suppress prostate cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo. But it is unclear whether microRNAs play a role in regulating oncogene expression in fulvestrant-treated prostate cancer. Here, this study reports hsa-miR-765 as the first fulvestrant-driven, ERβ-regulated miRNA exhibiting significant tumor suppressor activities like fulvestrant, against prostate cancer cell growth via blockage of cell-cycle progression at the G2/M transition, and cell migration and invasion possibly via reduction of filopodia/intense stress-fiber formation. Fulvestrant was shown to upregulate hsa-miR-765 expression through recruitment of ERβ to the 5′-regulatory-region of hsa-miR-765. HMGA1, an oncogenic protein in prostate cancer, was identified as a downstream target of hsa-miR-765 and fulvestrant in cell-based experiments and a clinical study. Both the antiestrogen and the hsa-miR-765 mimic suppressed HMGA1 protein expression. In a neo-adjuvant study, levels of hsa-miR-765 were increased and HMGA1 expression was almost completely lost in prostate cancer specimens from patients treated with a single dose (250 mg) of fulvestrant 28 days before prostatectomy. These findings reveal a novel fulvestrant signaling cascade involving ERβ-mediated transcriptional upregulation of hsa-miR-765 that suppresses HMGA1 protein expression as part of the mechanism underlying the tumor suppressor action of fulvestrant in prostate cancer. © 2014 Leung et al

The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011)

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor recruitment into clinical trials rests on a patient ‘deficit’ model – an inability to comprehend trial processes. Poor communication has also been cited as a possible barrier to recruitment. A qualitative patient interview study was included within the feasibility stage of a phase III non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (SPARE, CRUK/07/011) in muscle invasive bladder cancer. The aim was to illuminate problems in the context of randomization. METHODS: The qualitative study used a ‘Framework Analysis’ that included ‘constant comparison’ in which semi-structured interviews are transcribed, analyzed, compared and contrasted both between and within transcripts. Three researchers coded and interpreted data. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients agreed to enter the interview study; 10 decliners of randomization and 14 accepters, of whom 2 subsequently declined their allocated treatment. The main theme applying to the majority of the sample was confusion and ambiguity. There was little indication that confusion directly impacted on decisions to enter the SPARE trial. However, confusion did appear to impact on ethical considerations surrounding ‘informed consent’, as well as cause a sense of alienation between patients and health personnel. Sub-optimal communication in many guises accounted for the confusion, together with the logistical elements of a trial that involved treatment options delivered in a number of geographical locations. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the difficulty of providing balanced and clear trial information within the UK health system, despite best intentions. Involvement of multiple professionals can impact on communication processes with patients who are considering participation in RCTs. Our results led us to question the ‘deficit’ model of patient behavior. It is suggested that health professionals might consider facilitating a context in which patients feel fully included in the trial enterprise and potentially consider alternatives to randomization where complex interventions are being tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN6112646

Parenteral oestrogen in the treatment of prostate cancer: a systematic review

The objectives of this study were to assess the effectiveness and safety of parenteral oestrogen in the treatment of prostate cancer, and to examine any dose relationship. A systematic review was undertaken. Electronic databases, published paper and internet resources were searched to locate published and unpublished studies with no restriction by language or publication date. Studies included were randomised controlled trials of parenteral oestrogen in patients with prostate cancer; other study designs were also included to examine dose–response. Study selection, appraisal, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and independently checked by another. Twenty trials were included in the review. The trials differed with regard to the included patients, formulation and dose of parenteral oestrogen, comparator used, outcome measures reported and the duration of follow-up. The results provide no evidence to suggest that parenteral oestrogen, in doses sufficient to produce castrate levels of testosterone, is less effective than luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) or orchidectomy in controlling prostate cancer, or that it is consistently associated with an increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further well-conducted trials of parenteral oestrogen are required. A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing transdermal oestrogen to LHRH analogues in men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer is underway in the United Kingdom